Abstract
Purpose
Consensus and uncertainty in early onset scoliosis (EOS) treatment were evaluated in 2010. It is currently unknown how treatment preferences have evolved over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate consensus and uncertainty among treatment options for EOS patients to understand how they compare to 10 years ago.
Methods
11 pediatric spinal surgeons (similar participants as in 2010) were invited to complete a survey of 315 idiopathic and neuromuscular EOS cases (same cases as in 2010). Treatment options included the following: conservative management, distraction-based methods, growth guidance/modulation, and arthrodesis. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement, and uncertainty was < 70%. Associations between case characteristics and consensus for treatments were assessed via chi-squared and multiple regression analyses. Case characteristics associated with uncertainty were described.
Results
Eleven surgeons [31.7 ± 7.8 years of experience] in the original 2010 cohort completed the survey. Consensus for conservative management was found in idiopathic patients aged ≤ 3, whereas in 2010, some of these cases were selected for surgery. There is currently consensus for casting idiopathic patients aged 1 or 2 with moderate curves, whereas in 2010, there was uncertainty between casting and bracing. Among neuromuscular cases with consensus for surgery, arthrodesis was chosen for patients aged 9 with larger curves.
Conclusion
Presently, preferences for conservative management have increased in comparison to 2010, and casting appears to be preferred over bracing in select infantile cases. Future research efforts with higher levels-of-evidence should be devoted to elucidate the areas of uncertainty to improve care in the EOS population.
Level of evidence
Level V.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, HM, upon reasonable request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Change history
28 September 2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00596-4
References
Fernandes P, Weinstein SL (2007) Natural history of early onset scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 1):21–33. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00754
Corona J, Miller DJ, Downs J et al (2013) Evaluating the extent of clinical uncertainty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95:e67
Vitale MG, Gomez JA, Matsumoto H et al (2011) Variability of expert opinion in treatment of early-onset scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:1317–1322
Alderson P (1996) Equipoise as a means of managing uncertainty: personal, communal and proxy. J Med Ethics 22:135–139
Fries JF, Krishnan E (2004) Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development. Arthritis Res Ther 6:R250–R255. https://doi.org/10.1186/ar1170
Bonsignore-Opp L, Murphy J, Skaggs D et al (2019) Pediatric device regulation: the case of anterior vertebral body tethering. Spine Deform 7:1019–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2019.09.006
Samdani AF, Pahys JM, Ames RJ et al (2021) Prospective follow-up report on anterior vertebral. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103:1611–1619
Cheung KM, Cheung JP, Samartzis D et al (2012) Magnetically controlled growing rods for severe spinal curvature in young children: a prospective case series. Lancet 379:1967–1974. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60112-3
Phillips JH, Knapp DR, Herrera-Soto J. 2013 Mortality and Morbidity in Early-Onset Scoliosis Surgery Spine 38(4): 324–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31826c6743
Bachabi M, McClung A, Pawelek JB et al (2020) Idiopathic early-onset scoliosis: growing rods versus vertically expandable prosthetic titanium ribs at 5-year follow-up. J Pediatr Orthop 40:142–148. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001202
Upasani VV, Parvaresh KC, Pawelek JB et al (2016) Age at Initiation and deformity magnitude influence complication rates of surgical treatment with traditional growing rods in early-onset scoliosis. Spine Deform 4:344–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.04.002
Sanders JO, D’Astous J, Fitzgerald M et al (2009) Derotational casting for progressive infantile scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 29:581–587. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3181b2f8df
Waldron SR, Poe-Kochert C, Son-Hing JP et al (2013) Early onset scoliosis: the value of serial risser casts. J Pediatr Orthop 33:775–780. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000072
Fletcher ND, McClung A, Rathjen KE et al (2012) Serial casting as a delay tactic in the treatment of moderate-to-severe early-onset scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 32:664–671. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e31824bdb55
Thompson GH, Akbarnia B, Campbell RM (2007) Growing rod techniques in early-onset scoliosis. J Pediatr Orthop 27:354–361. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0b013e3180333eea
Thorsness RJ, Faust JR, Behrend CJ et al (2015) Nonsurgical management of early-onset scoliosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 23:519–528
Akbarnia BA, Pawelek JB, Cheung KM et al (2014) Traditional growing rods versus magnetically controlled growing rods for the surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis: a case-matched 2-year study. Spine Deform 2:493–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.09.050
Bekmez S, Afandiyev A, Dede O et al (2019) Is magnetically controlled growing rod the game changer in early-onset scoliosis? a preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop 39:E195–E200. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001268
Bauer JM, Yorgova P, Neiss G et al (2019) Early onset scoliosis: is there an improvement in quality of life with conversion from traditional growing rods to magnetically controlled growing rods? J Pediatr Orthop 39:E284–E288. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000001299
Chen Z, Qiu Y, Zhu Z et al (2017) How does hyperkyphotic early-onset scoliosis respond to growing rod treatment? J Pediatr Orthop 37:e593–e598. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPO.0000000000000905
Varley ES, Pawelek JB, Mundis GM et al (2021) The role of traditional growing rods in the era of magnetically controlled growing rods for the treatment of early-onset scoliosis. Spine Deform 9:1465–1472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-021-00332-4
Vitale MG, Matsumoto H, Bye MR et al. (2008) A retrospective cohort study of pulmonary function, radiographic measures, and quality of life in children with congenital scoliosis: an evaluation of patient outcomes after early spinal fusion. Spine. 33(11):1242–9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181714536
Karol LA, Johnston C, Mladenov K et al (2008) Pulmonary function following early thoracic fusion in non-neuromuscular scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1272–1281. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00184
Pawelek JB, Yaszay B, Nguyen S et al. 2016 Case-matched comparison of spinal fusion versus growing rods for progressive idiopathic scoliosis in skeletally immature patients. Spine 41(3):234–238. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001198
Glotzbecker M (2021) From the Wild West to the Moon: The Future of Early Onset Scoliosis. JPOSNA 3.
Johnson N, Lilford RJ, Brazier W (1991) At what level of collective equipoise does a clinical trial become ethical? J Med Ethics 17:30–34
Funding
This work was conducted without the support of additional funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
HM, ANF, TQ,BA, LB, JF, DS, JS, BS, PS, RM, PS, DR, JE, MGV; Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, or the creation of new software used in the work. HM, ANF, TQ,BA, LB, JF, DS, JS, BS, PS, RM, PS, DR, JE, MGV; Drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content. HM, ANF, TQ,BA, LB, JF, DS, JS, BS, PS, RM, PS, DR, JE, MGV; Approved of the version to be published. HM, ANF, TQ,BA, LB, JF, DS, JS, BS, PS, RM, PS, DR, JE, MGV; Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Dr. Blakemore reports personal fees from Stryker outside the submitted work. Dr. Matsumoto reports personal fees from Pediatric Spine Foundation, grants from Scoliosis Research Society, grants from Pediatric Orthopaedic of North America outside the submitted work. Dr. McCarthy reports personal fees from Medtronic and OrthoPediatrics outside the submitted work. Dr. Skaggs reports personal fees from Biomet, personal fees from Grand Rounds, personal fees from Orthobullets, and grants from Growing Spine Foundation outside the submitted work. Dr. Sponseller reports personal fees from DePuy Synthes, personal fees from OrthoPediatrics, and personal fees from Nuvasive outside the submitted work. Dr. Sturm reports personal fees from Nuvasive and DePuy Synthes outside the submitted work. Dr. Vitale reports non-financial support from Pediatric Spine Foundation, during the conduct of the study; grants from Setting Scoliosis Straight Foundation, grants and other from Children’s Spine Foundation, grants from Orthopaedic Scientific Research Foundation, grants and other from POSNA, other from OMeGA, personal fees from Stryker, personal fees from Biomet, personal fees from Nuvasive outside of the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the participating sites and by the Columbia University Institutional Review Board under protocol AAAS6106. It was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Consent to participate
This study qualifies for a waiver of consent because it is a survey of surgeons and does not involve patient participation. There is no potential to adversely affect the rights or welfare of subjects since this is a survey to gather surgeon opinion, with no patient data being collected or intervention being tested.
Consent for publication
No patient identifying information is included in the article. Not applicable.
Copyright and patient information
No copyrighted materials or patient information is included in this manuscript submission.
Permission to reproduce copyrighted materials
No copyrighted materials are included in this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: In this article the academic degrees of authors Adam N. Fano and Theodore Quan had been erronously included as part of their names.
Appendix 1: Characteristics of cases with treatment consensus and uncertainty
Appendix 1: Characteristics of cases with treatment consensus and uncertainty
Case characteristics | Treatment consensus | Treatment uncertainty |
---|---|---|
Idiopathic Scoliosis | ||
Age of 1, 2, 3, 6, or 9 yearrs; Cobb angle of 30°, 60°, or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve | Conservative | |
Age of 6 years*; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in thepast 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve | Distraction | |
Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; hyperkyphosis; rigid curve | TGR | |
Age of 6 yrs; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15° or 30° curve progression in last 6 mo; normokyphosis, flexible or rigid curve | MCGR | |
Age of 6 yrs; Cobb angle of 90°; 30° curve progression in last 6 mo; normokyphosis, flexible curve | Spine-based | |
Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; rigid curve | Rib-based | |
Age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; hyperkyphosis; flexible curve | Growth guidance | |
Age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 15° or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible curve | Growth modulation | |
Age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis, flexible or rigid curve | Growth guidance-arthrodesis | |
Age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0° of curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible curve | Conservative-surgical | |
Age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; rigid curve | No treatment preference | |
Age of 1, 2, 3, or 6 years; Cobb angle of 30°; 0° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve | Observation-bracing | |
Age of 6 yrs; Cobb angle of 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in last 6 mo; hyperkyphosis; flexible curve | TGR-Rib/spine-MCGR-spine/Spine | |
Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible or rigid curve | MCGR-Rib/spine-MCGR-spine/spine | |
Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; hyperkyphosis; flexible curve | TGR-MCGR | |
Age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve | Rib-based-spine-based distraction | |
Age of 1, 2, 3, or 6 yrs; Cobb angle of 30°; 0° curve progression in last 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve | Observation-intervention | |
Neuromuscular Scoliosis | ||
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 30° or 60°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Conservative | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Distraction | |
Hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 15° or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; hyperkyphosis; flexible curve; respiratory impairment; normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement | VEPTR | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | MCGR | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 15° or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Spine-based | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age 3 or 6 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Rib-based | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Arthrodesis | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Conservative-distraction | |
Hypertonic; age of 9 yrs; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0° or 15° curve progression in last 6 mo; hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Conservative-arthrodesis | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible curve; respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Distraction-arthrodesis | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the past 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Conservative-surgical | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | No treatment preference | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 30° or 60°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Observation-bracing | |
Hypertonic; age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; rigid curve; respiratory impairment; poor nutritional status; chest wall involvement | Observation-MCGR-Rib/Pelvis | |
Hypertonic; age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the pst 6 months; hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Observation-Arthrodesis | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 9 years; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0°, 15°, or 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible curve; respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | MCGR-Spine/Pelvis-arthrodesis | |
Hypertonic; age of 6 years; Cobb angle of 90°; 0° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible curve; respiratory impairment; poor nutritional status; chest wall involvement | Rib-based-Spine-based Distraction | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 3, 6, or 9 years; Cobb angle of 30°, 60°, or 90°; 0°, 15°, 30° curve progression in the past 6 months; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Observation-intervention | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 yrs; Cobb angle of 60° or 90°; 0° or 15° curve progression in last 6 mo; normal or hyperkyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Observation-surgical | |
Hypertonic or hypotonic/myopathic; age of 6 or 9 years; Cobb angle of 60°; 0° or 15° curve progression in the past 6 months; normokyphosis; flexible or rigid curve; respiratory impairment or no respiratory impairment; poor or normal nutritional status; chest wall involvement or no chest wall involvement | Observation-MCGR |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Matsumoto, H., Fano, A.N., Quan, T. et al. Re-evaluating consensus and uncertainty among treatment options for early onset scoliosis: a 10-year update. Spine Deform 11, 11–25 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00561-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-022-00561-1